Wow, this sounds pretty bad. Of course, the Catholic church needed as many prior offender-pedophiles in higher office as possible.
Unbelievable. The guy admitted to tying up kids a few years before and more was coming out, but the Pope thought the pedophile needed more time with the kids, I guess.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Not “defrocking” him did not enable him to have more time with kids.
His time with kids was already over. He had been removed from ministry.
“Defrocking” is a stupid journalist term for laicization. It has to do with a very technical issue, hard to explain. The priest does not cease to be a priest even when defrocked in the sense of the sacramental character conferred when he was ordained. But he does cease to be a priest in another sense.
This has very little to do with the man in question being a danger to children. The breathlessly mindless media band the word “defrocked” around as if it’s all that matters, so, therefore, not defrocking must be eeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiilllllll.
Ergo Benedict/Ratzinger is eeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvviiiiiiilllllll.
And you buy it hook, line and sinker.
Probably the priest should have been laicized faster. Ratzinger himself was behind John Paul II’s structural changes in 2001 to make laicizations take place faster.
But in this case, the breathless orgasmic press coverage which you ate up is mostly beside the point.
But most people are too stupid to know the difference.